Judge Darnell Jones anounced an innovative plan to stem foreclosures in Philadelphia Wednesday. Philadelphia homeowners will have a chance to modify the terms of sub-prime and predatory loans so that they can again afford the payments. It's a modification, not a re-finance, which means that they don't have to reapply or accrue new settlement fees. The lender simply agrees to lower the interest rates and change the terms on the existing mortgage. The deal only applies to owner-occuppied residences. It also only applies if the owner-occupant takes advantage of the court-mandated opportunity to meet with attorneys for their lender within 45 days of the foreclosure filing. If they don't, foreclosure will proceed like it always does.

In Harold Brubaker's story on the deal in yesterday's Business Section of the Inquirer, Tobi Walker of the Pew Charitable Trusts said, "This is one of the more innovative approaches we've seen."

The situation for lenders has been bad enough that they have been willing to pursue modifications with homeowners, but the process has been so cumbersome that many homeowners have still lost their homes because the foreclosure moved faster than lenders' workout staff could get through the volume of cases. Philadelphia advocates had a key insight: we have a large workforce of housing counselors available and willing to manage the lion's share of the modification process, if only the lenders would agree to give them that authority. Now, the court is requiring it.

Common Please Court has made this happen procedurally. It now simply requires lenders to give homeowners the opportunity to modify loans before permitting a foreclosure to go forward in court. There's no case or decision to look up. The court has simply changed the way it conducts the business of foreclosure.

Here's how it happened: late last year The Philadelphia Unemployment Project began calling Philadelphians holding mortgages through Countrywide. We invited them to meet as a group with our housing counselors, discuss their options as individuals and ask them to join with us as a group to press for a better deal through our Foreclosure Crisis Committee. Then, in December, the Save Our Homes Coalition convened in the PUP offices. Community Legal Services, ACORN, Philadelphia Legal Assistance and various Housing Counseling Agencies from around the city.

Meanwhile, the whole economy began teetering badly as the collective misjudgement of America's housing market by the world financial industry became apparent. Click read more to find out the rest of the story.

... Or rather, people I am not sick of, specifically three of them (Link:)

After learning that battered women in Philadelphia are largely responsible for serving their attackers with court stay-away orders, aghast City Council members yesterday called upon the Committee on Public Safety to explore alternatives to a process they deemed dangerous for abuse victims.

"The current system . . . is absolutely preposterous and untenable," Councilman Bill Green said in a statement. "Not only are we causing the abuse victim additional mental anguish, but we are placing the victim in additional danger of physical harm."

Green, along with Council members Maria Quinones Sanchez, Curtis Jones Jr. and Blondell Reynolds Brown, introduced a resolution authorizing the safety committee to hold hearings on the service of protection-from-abuse orders, or PFAs.

Yesterday's resolution was prompted by a Daily News series on domestic violence that ran in late December.

The series followed one victim's exhausting and frightening quest to serve her alleged attacker with a temporary PFA issued by Family Court.

Quinones Sanchez, Green, and Jones, Jr. To paraphrase my hero, Ronald Reagan, there they go again.

Basically, we have a stupid, asinine law that women who get protective orders against their abusers must... actually serve those orders themselves. If women felt like they were in danger, they could call 911 and get police to accompany them, which about half do.

I am sure calling 911 is a barrier for some women in the first place. And, even if the police do a good job of accompanying them whenever they are asked, it is ridiculous that we are putting abused women in the position where they have to unnecessarily confront their alleged abuser.

We have some good Councilpeople who have served for a while (Kenney, Tasco, Goode, etc.), but sometimes bringing in new people is simply helpful because they can look at stupid things that have gone for a long time, and simply say "WTF?"

My BFF, Donna Miller, is chair of the Public Safety Committee, and yet to set hearings. Hopefully this happens soon.

Nice job, Daily News. This is just another example of how important local print media can be.

-----------

Update: Please see the comments below from Seth Levi, from Councilman Green's office, who clarifies (and corrects me, on) what exactly happens when woman get protective orders.

The Committee of Seventy, hot off of the success of its co-sponsorship of The Next Mayor project, has turned its attention to updating the city charter, arguing (as Sylvester Johnson also recently said) that the police commissioner should have more power to appoint his subordinates and to recruit police officers who don't currently live in the city. My reaction to this was similar to Dan's:

This is a little strange. I understand they are a good government group, so getting their opinion on taking away civil service jobs and moving them to appointments makes sense. But, doesn't it seem strange that instead of being asked about whether they would support a move, they are actually proposing policing policy changes?... (I)t seems more like the Committee of Seventy is either greatly expanding its mission, or that someone asked them to issue this call for change, so as to use their goodwill in the media, etc.

On Sunday, Zack Stalberg appeared on Live at Issue. He said that with the change in office, the Committee of Seventy was likely to shift its attention away from ethics violations (the main issue during the Street Administration) and towards "good government," i.e., efficiency, the quality of city services, etc. The proposed changes to the city charter, then, would fall under how the Committee is now interpreting its mandate.

But even if it's a broadening of focus rather than a wholesale change, I find this troubling -- especially insofar as it seems part of a narrative that with Street out and Nutter in, the city's ethical problems are over and we can move on to other issues. The presumption that a change of the top office holder somehow changes both the prevailing dynamics and universal potential for corruption is woefully short-sighted. [Read on after the jump.]